Haryana

StateCommission

A/1055/2015

FUTURE GENERALI INDIA INS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIJAY - Opp.Party(s)

VISHAL AGGARWAL

14 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

 

First Appeal No  : 1055 of 2015

Date of Institution: 09.12.2015

Date of Decision : 14.12.2016

 

Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited, having its registered office at 3^rd floor, Kailash Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its Assistant Manager-Legal Prerna Jain.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Parties No.1 to 3

 Versus

 

1.      Vijay Singh son of Shri Kanhiya Lal, resident of Village Jharsaintli, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.

Respondent No.1-Complainant

2.      M/s TATA Capital Limited, One Forbes, Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001 through its Managing Director/Principal Officer.

Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.4

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Sh. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant.

                             Sh. Ajay Nara, Advocate for the respondent No.1

          (Service of respondent No.2 dispensed with vide order dated 16.03.2016)

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          By filing the present appeal, Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited-opposite parties No.1 to 3 (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) has challenged the order dated October 15^th, 2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (in short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Vijay Singh-complainant was allowed. Operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“11. Opposite parties No.1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.7,16,300/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till realization of amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order to the complainant.  Opposite parties No.1 to 3 are further directed to pay Rs.5500/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant….”

  2.    Complainant Vijay Singh got his vehicle Safari LX insured with the Insurance Company for the period 11.06.2008 to 10.06.2009.  The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.7,16,300/-.  On 18.07.2008, the vehicle was stolen.  First Information Report No. 133 dated 22.07.2008 was registered in Police Station Karol Bagh, New Delhi.  The Insurance Company was also informed. The claim submitted by the complainant was repudiated by the Insurance Company. Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      Insurance Company, in its written version, pleaded that the complainant had violated the provisions of Section 39 Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and rules thereto, by plying the vehicle on 18.07.2008 within the jurisdiction of Police Station Karol Bagh, New Delhi, whereas the said vehicle was purchased on 15.06.2008 as well as had violated terms and conditions of the insurance policy by plying the vehicle for commercial use for hire and reward.  The complainant lodged claim with the Insurance Company on 23.07.2008. The Investigator in its report dated 14.11.2008 submitted that the vehicle was being plied for commercial purpose for hire and reward. The vehicle in question was hired by two passengers.  The keys of the vehicle was in the possession of the two passengers who drove the vehicle.   Thus, the complainant was not entitled to the benefits of insurance and his claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 08.05.2009.  

4.      Learned counsel for the counsel for the Insurance Company has assailed the impugned order by raising two fold arguments firstly that the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the complainant because the complainant himself was negligent in handing over the keys of the vehicle to some unknown person and secondly that the complainant has not been able to explain the delay of four days in lodging of FIR. 

5.      The contention raised in tenable.  Undisputedly, on 18.07.2008, the complainant had handed over his vehicle to his driver namely Sanjay.  He parked the vehicle in the parking in front of Hotel Swati, Karol Bagh, Delhi and went to take meal after handing over the keys to some unknown person.  When he came back, he found the vehicle to have been stolen.  The action of complainant in handing over keys of vehicle to unknown person facilitated the theft, therefore, complainant himself was to be blamed for it. Tt is also not in dispute that FIR (Annexure A-5) was lodged on 22.07.2008, that is, after four days of the incident.  The complainant has not been able to explain the reason for not lodging the FIR immediately after the incident. In view of this, the complainant is himself at fault for not safeguarding his vehicle and thus, violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  Thus the complainant is not entitled to the benefits of insurance.  The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint and as such, the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain. Therefore, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. 

6.      The statutory amount of Rs. 25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

Announced 14.12.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President